Just as Commission is set for hearing on Willingham case, Perry replaces three members, including the chair.

New chair, John Bradley, calls off hearing. Rewrites Commission rules to prevent any investigation. Commission eventually rebels.

Hearing is held after Perry is relected (which seems to have been the point) and surprise, experts say what we knew - no evidence of arson. State brings in a lawyer to say that in his opinion there sure was.

Do you reopen cases? Do you issue a real report on Willingham? Do you admit killing an innocent guy? Do you admit there's at least a chance you did?

Or do you get the Attorney General to issue an opinion saying that Commission could investigate the case but couldn't look at the evidence?

Alan Turner, writing in the Houston Chronicle, notes that current Commission chair, Dr. Nazim Peerwani, doesn't know for sure what will happen next.

"We will debate what impact the opinion has on Willingham at our meeting in September," he said. "It's something we will collectively decide."

Bradley, who was ousted from the chairship by the legislature, knows the right answer.

"I'm not on the commission, so I don't know what it will do," he said, adding that, given Abbott's ruling, moving forward with the investigation "would really threaten the rule of law."

He meant to say the Law of Rule. Or maybe the Law of Cover-Up. But then, like Humpty Dumpty, when he uses a word

it means just what [he] choose[s] it to mean -- neither more nor less.

Nanez had appealed his conviction on two counts of aggravated sexual assault. His claim was that his trial lawyer was a grotesque incompetent. The court of appeals disagreed. Actually, it didn't just disagree. It excoriated him and his appellate counsel.

Counsel is not ineffective simply because he did not do that which his accuser thought he should have done. Nor is he legally deficient simply because some attorney who enjoys the benefit of hindsight and cool reflection would have taken a different tact. Indeed, appellate counsel should not only recognize what is required by law but also use caution when calling someone ineffective. Those before us today should heed that admonishment when next they think about invoking the theory. Unfounded and undeveloped accusations like those uttered at bar needlessly belittle their human target and do little to serve a client's interests. It “ain't” a game folks; it's real lives we are dealing with.

Well, yeah.

But the lives at issue aren't the lives of the lawyers. They're the lives of the defendants.

The opinion in Nanez was written by Justice Quinn. He's been down this road before. In fact, he cites an opinion he wrote in 1998 making the same point.

Claims of ineffective assistance seem to be the newest tactic in the criminal defense arsenal. They are increasingly being offered as a means of attacking the judgment. Yet, it has been our experience that very, very few have any semblance of probative value. Instead, appellants have ignored the admonishment that hindsight and perfection are not the test and have taken to castigating counsel for not doing what they would have done if they were lucky enough to have a record of the completed trial before them. It is enough that attorneys have become the butt of disrespect and incessant jokes within the public eye. But, to have attorneys attack attorneys on utterly baseless grounds, like here, where appellant does not even attempt to question the evidence of his guilt, is unacceptable.

OK, got it now. You can only claim your lawyer was a fuck up if you're factually innocent.

STEP THREE - GOODNIGHT IRENE (or Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out)

Killer Keller is running for Chief Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Why not? She wasn't actually censured or removed from office or defrocked or anything. And there are still doors to slam, so her work isn't done.

If she wins the election this year and serves her full term, she'll have been CJ longer than anyone else in Texas history. Enough.

Judge Larry Meyers - usually a member of the Keller-Hervey pro-prosecution wing of the CCA - has decided to run against Sharon Keller as presiding judge in 2012 in the Republican primary.

I'm not sure there's actually a wing of the court that isn't "pro-prosecution," but I get the point. You wouldn't expect it of Meyers.

Meyers' challenge comes from a judge who's sided with Keller on most topics - and even went on a damage-control tour with the media on her behalf at the height of her troubles - but who now appears to have had enough of her.

According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, there's nothing personal or even substantive here. Meyers just thinks it's time for a change.

The normal term for this position is 8-10 years. As such, it is time to rotate the presiding judgeship on our Court.

Useful sites

About Me

Criminal defense lawyer, public defender, civil libertarian (former Legal Director of American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio), anti-death penalty activist, public speaker.
After many years in private practice, I'm now a public defender in the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's Office.
My first career was English Professor. I studied medieval and renaissance English Literature, taught literature, film, and composition. I've been a film critic.
NONE OF WHAT APPEARS IN THIS BLOG SHOULD BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE.
ALSO, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE STUFF I WRITE IS MINE ALONE. I STAND MORE OR LESS BEHIND IT, BUT I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANY OTHER LAWYER OR ANY GROUP OF LAWYERS AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER.